150 Armed Militia Members Take Over Federal Building

[Rotobeast]

(03-16-2016, 04:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They already released a video that exonerated him just as much as any body cam would.

What more would a body cam show that you have not already seen?

The main thing would be clearing up whether he was receiving conflicting orders.

With all due respect, why would anyone be against more evidence to support what happened ?

[*bfine32*]

(03-16-2016, 04:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And some people live so deep in an echo chamber that they do not even care what is true or not.


Link to video

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oregon-occupier-lavoy-finicum-warns-fbi-he-d-take-death-n491056?utm_content=bufferbdbae&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Thanks for posting the video I hadn't seen that. When asked point blank what he would do if they pointed a gun at them, he still didn't say "kill or be killed", (echo chamber you say) he didn't even say he would point back when asked leading questions. 

[fredtoast]

(03-16-2016, 08:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  he didn't even say he would point back when asked leading questions. 

He clearly said he would point his gun at anyone who pointed a gun at him.

[fredtoast]

(03-16-2016, 04:44 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I think he might have tried to pull his gun, but only after he had been hit twice already and figured they weren't going to let him live.

You have to be kidding.  

1.  The guy had said he would rather die than go to jail.  

2.  He is not falling forward and shows no sign of being struck by bullets when he reaches for his gun.

3.  The FBI had absolutely no reason to want to kill the guy.  His death has just made things harder for them without giving them any benefit at all.  They would much rather have taken him alive.

[*bfine32*]

(03-17-2016, 01:07 AM)fredtoast Wrote: He clearly said he would point his gun at anyone who pointed a gun at him.

Must admit. I cannot watch the video right now, but the part where the video begins (mid-sentnece for some reason) I recall him saying he would not point a gun at anyone unless they pointed one at them. But enough with the symantics. Please list all occupiers that have been charged with Criminal Threatening or Terrostis Activities.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-16-2016, 04:44 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: a close up as to why his right hand dipped down to his left hip with out pulling out a gun would be nice.

I think he might have tried to pull his gun, but only after he had been hit twice already and figured they weren't going to let him live.

And Not one single person from the group fired or raised arms against them, like they initially reported.

That's why only one of them is dead.  Not coincidentally that person was the only one who exited a vehicle that had just fled, and almost struck, law enforcement.  He was also the only one who acted erratically upon exiting the vehicle and reaching for his waistband.  I'm baffled how this doesn't add up to some people.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-17-2016, 11:06 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Must admit. I cannot watch the video right now, but the part where the video begins (mid-sentnece for some reason) I recall him saying he would not point a gun at anyone unless they pointed one at them. But enough with the symantics. Please list all occupiers that have been charged with Criminal Threatening or Terrostis Activities.

Here's a tidbit of information.  If you are arresting a suspect you know to be armed you automatically have your firearm ready and aimed at them until they are rendered safe.

[*bfine32*]

(03-17-2016, 11:14 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's a tidbit of information.  If you are arresting a suspect you know to be armed you automatically have your firearm ready and aimed at them until they are rendered safe.

Good info; What does that have to do with the point at hand? I have already said he is responsible for his death.

[fredtoast]

(03-17-2016, 11:06 AM)bfine32 Wrote:  But enough with the symantics.

Well there goes 90% of your arguments around here

(03-17-2016, 11:06 AM)bfine32 Wrote:  Please list all occupiers that have been charged with Criminal Threatening

Let me guess.  The formal charges involve "intimidation and coercion", but you are going to argue that that is not "threatening" in any way.

Am I right, Mr Semantics?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-17-2016, 11:22 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Good info; What does that have to do with the point at hand? 

*cough*

(03-17-2016, 11:06 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I recall him saying he would not point a gun at anyone unless they pointed one at them.

[*bfine32*]

(03-17-2016, 11:34 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: *cough*

Exactly. Different than saying he would point a gun at anyone that pointed a gun at him; as I am sure guns were pointed at him when he exited the vehicle and did not have his weapon pointed at anyone. I appreciate your help in bringing this to my attention.

[*bfine32*]

(03-17-2016, 11:31 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Let me guess.  The formal charges involve "intimidation and coercion", but you are going to argue that that is not "threatening" in any way.

Am I right, Mr Semantics?

How about you tell me counselor or at least list the charge(s) instead of one word and we can further make a determination if that fall into the categories of threating or terror.

You just cannot help yourself with the insults and name calling can you?

[fredtoast]

(03-17-2016, 11:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: How about you tell me counselor or at least list the charge(s) instead of one word and we can further make a determination if that fall into the categories of threating or terror.

You just cannot help yourself with the insults and name calling can you?

Okay first prove to me that it will not be a waste of time.

If the occupiers were charged with "coercion and intimidation" will you admit that means the same as threatening?

[fredtoast]

(03-17-2016, 11:50 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Exactly. Different than saying he would point a gun at anyone that pointed a gun at him; as I am sure guns were pointed at him when he exited the vehicle and did not have his weapon pointed at anyone. I appreciate your help in bringing this to my attention.

So let me understand exactly what you are trying to say before I go to the trouble to prove you wrong.

Is it your position that LaVoy never intended to give the impression that he would resist arrest with his weapon if the FBI tried to arrest him?

It is a shame I have to pin you down like thids, but so far you have refused to give an opinion.  all you have done is play word games.  So just tell me your position so I can address it properly.

[*bfine32*]

(03-17-2016, 02:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So let me understand exactly what you are trying to say before I go to the trouble to prove you wrong.

Is it your position that LaVoy never intended to give the impression that he would resist arrest with his weapon if the FBI tried to arrest him?

It is a shame I have to pin you down like thids, but so far you have refused to give an opinion.  all you have done is play word games.  So just tell me your position so I can address it properly.

I would say he gave the impression he would not rule it out. I'm not sure what "word games" I am playing. I'm using the exact quotes; I realize that is often frownded upon.

As to the other: As I said list the charges and we will decide if they are Criminal threatening or terroristic activity instead of "If you see these words". I know how you dislike word games.

Not sure how much easier I can make it. hell you can be 'right' just by posting the charge; we'll dismiss the whole innocent until proven guilty sham.

[fredtoast]

(03-17-2016, 04:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I would say he gave the impression he would not rule it out.

And what made you think this?

Better yet, what made you think he would not use his gun against FBI agents if they tried to arrest him.  You seem to make all of your decisions based on his exact words, so what exact words did he use that made you think he would surrender peacefully when the FBI tried to arrest him?

[fredtoast]

(03-17-2016, 04:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the other: As I said list the charges and we will decide if they are Criminal threatening or terroristic activity instead of "If you see these words". I know how you dislike word games.

So you are saying that "intimidation and coercion" is not the same as "threatening".

You don't have to see the words anywhere else to know what they mean.  So why can't you give me a straight answer to the question?  You make decisions made on "exact words" right. 

I'll bet it is the same reason that you will not post the charges yourself.  It is because you know that you are wrong.

I don't play games where you tell me to do something and I just jump.  You were the one who brought up the charges so YOU post them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-17-2016, 11:50 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Exactly. Different than saying he would point a gun at anyone that pointed a gun at him; as I am sure guns were pointed at him when he exited the vehicle and did not have his weapon pointed at anyone. I appreciate your help in bringing this to my attention.

The cognitive dissonance in this post is staggering.